5 

073 

071 


An  Historical  Stuck 


BY 


KHV.    DR.    ISAAC    SCHWAB 


(839  East  B2d  Street,  New  York.) 


PRICE,    23   CENTS. 


NK\V    YORK.  : 

')F  THK  HKBRKW  oRI'HAX  ASVI.l'M. 


BE  PATRIOTS? 


An  Historical  Study 


BY 


REV.    DR.    ISAAC    SCHWAB, 


(339  East  32d  Street,  New  York.) 


NEW  YORK : 

INDUSTRIAL  SCHOOL  OF  THE  HEBREW  ORPHAN  ASYLUM, 

76TH  STREET,  BETWEEN  THIRD  AND  LEXINGTON  AVENUES. 

1878. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1878, 

By  BEV.  DB.  ISAAC  SCHWAB, 
in  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington 


CAN  JEWS  BE  PATRIOTS? 


ARE  the  Jews  able  to  love  and  cling  to  the  country  of  their 
birth  or  adoption  ? 

Professor  Goldwin  Smith,  of  England,  denies  it  It  was 
during  England's  political  complications  with  Russia  that  he, 
in  an  article  entitled:  "England's  Abandonment  of  tne  Pro- 
tectorate of  Turkey,"  expressed  himself:  "They  have  now 
been  everywhere  made  voters;  to  make  them  patriots  while 
they  remain  genuine  Jews,  is  beyond  the  legislator's  power." 
In  another  paper  he  plainly  charges  the  English  Jews  with 
using  their  influence  towards  drawing  England  into  a  war,  and 
asks  that,  in  the  presence  of  such  political  danger,  the  exercise 
of  political  power  be  watched  rather  closely.  He  pretends 
also  to  know  that  the  ruling  motives  of  the  Jewish  commu- 
nity are  not  exclusively  those  which  actuate  a  patriotic 
Englishman,  but  are  specially  Jewish  and  plutopolitan. 

The  Jews  are  to  him  a  "jealously  separate  race,"  Judaism 
is  a  "  distinction  of  race,"  '  and  an  English  Jew  is  not  an 
"  Englishman  holding  particular  theological  tenets,  he  is  a 
Jew  with  a  special  deity  for  his  own  race."2  Consequently, 
he  argues,  the  English  Jews  cannot  love  their  country  and 
boar  allegiance  to  it.  He  demands  that  they  "cease  their 
clinging  to  this  miserable  idolatry  of  race,  which  has  in  the 

1  Rev.  Robert  Hall  gives  us  credit  for  being  the  "  depositaries  of 
true  religion." 

'-'  James  Anthony  Froude  has  it.  that  among  the  ancient  Hebrews 
God  was  the  supreme  Lord  of  the  world.  Did  we  degenerate  since 
from  this  faith  ? 


2117235 


present  actually  lost  its  character,"  and  then  they  could  be 
regarded  as  loyal  citizens  and  patriots.  What  in  his  opinion 
disables  them  most  from  becoming  such,  is  their  refusal  of 
intermarriage,  for,  says  he,  "It  would  be  difficult  to  name 
anything  more  distinctive  of  those  relations  with  the  rest  of 
the  community  on  which  patriotism  depends,  than  the  refusal  of 
intermarriage.  Mere  soil  is  not  the  country,  but  the  soil 
inhabited  by  the  race,  the  race  which  is  in  every  sense  ours, 
and  to  which  \ve  are  proud  and  happy  to  belong."  He  would 
not  let  them  pass  as  full  citizens,  unless  they  submit  to  inter- 
marriage, though  he  is  generous  enough  not  to  wish  them 
deprived  of  their  emancipation,  should  they  even  conclude  to 
remain  "genuine,  strict''  Jews.  It  is  only  this  class  of  Jews 
to  whom  lie  would  deny  the  possibility  of  being  patriots, 
while  to  the  rest,  the  liberal  who  are  on  a  level  with  the  the- 
ists,  stripped  of  every  Jewish  peculiarity,  he  concedes  the 
right  to  that  name. 

Such  extravagant  reasoning  is  Professor  Smith's  !  Dr.  Her- 
mann Adler,  of  London,  ably  refuted  some  of  his  arguments 
in  the  April  number  of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  leaving,  how- 
ever, ample  scope  for  others  to  take  up  the  same  task.  I,  for 
my  part,  shall  also  review  the  Professor's  assertions,  in  the 
following  pages. 

Let  me,  at  the  outset,  ask  in  the  name  of  common  sense: 
Would  an  English  Je\v,  if  England  were  threatened  with  im- 
mediate danger,  fail  to  stand  up  resolutely  with  his  Christian 
compatriots  to  defend  her,  because  he  keeps  the  Sabbath  and 
not  the  Sunday  ?  Would  he  refuse  to  offer  nis  money  or  his 
strength  on  the  altar  of  patriotism,  because  he  has  never  been 
baptized  ?  Does  the  Jewish  religion  forbid  patriotic  senti- 
ments and  actions?  I  defy  any  one  to  prove  it  from  the 
Bible  or  the  Talmud.  Professor  Smith  could,  after  some 
inquiry,  have  found  just  the  contrary  statement  in  a  Catechism 


for  the  Jewish  youth  of  England,  written  by  Ascher,  which 
I  presume  is  yet  in  use  there.  In  that  book  we  find  the  fol- 
lowing. 

"  Has  the  Jew  a  fatherland  besides  Jerusalem  * 

"Yes,  the  country  wherein  lie  is  bred  and  born,  and  in 
which  he  has  the  liberty  to  practise  his  religion,  and  where 
he  is  allowed  to  carry  on  traffic  and  trade,  and  to  enjoy  all 
the  advantages  and  protection  of  the  law,  in  common  with 
the  citizens  of  other  creeds,  this  country  the  Israelite  is  bound 
to  acknowledge  as  his  fatherland,  to  the  benefit  of  which  he 
must  do  his  best  to  contribute.  The  sovereign  who  rules 
over  this  land  is  (after  God)  his  sovereign ;  its  laws,  so  long 
as  they  are  not  contradictory  to  the  Divine  Law,  are  also  the 
Israelite's  laws ;  and  the  duties  of  his  fellow-citizens  are  also 
his  duties." 

This  catechism  was  written  by  a  "strict"  Jew,  as  the 
orthodox  turn  of  the  quoted  question  indicates,  and  for  the 
"genuine  "  Jewish  youth.  From  it  they  are  assuredly  taught 
to  love  their  country.  Since,  then,  the  Sabbath-school  does 
not  foster  notions  of  unpatriotic  separatism,  where  else  does 
the  English  youth  gather  them  ?  At  home,  perhaps,  in  their 
intercourse  with  their  parents?  I  need  not  hesitate  solemnly 
to  declare,  in  the  name  of  all  Jewish  parents  of  England,  may 
they  be  ever  so  "  genuine  and  strict,"  that  they  would  reject 
the  idea  of  teaching  their  children  that  they  are  not  by  their 
religion  and  conscience  bound  to  love  and  abide  by  their 
country. 

What  is  one's  country?  Certainly  not  the  mere  soil,  as 
Professor  Smith  himself  truly  says,  and  as  everybody  will 
admit.  Not  the  soil,  nor  the  climate  or  latitude,  where  a 
certain  number  of  men  settle  together,  makes  this  habitation 
their  country,  but  their  society  organized  on  the  basis  of 
right,  justice,  and  humanity.  The  confederation  of  all  those 


6 

inhabitants  by  the  ties  of  common  laws  and  human  rights 
makes  their  surroundings  their  country,  may  they  differ  ever 
so  widely  from  one  another  in  their  religious  persuasions. 
Where  the  law  of  the  commonwealth  protects  their  interests, 
and  permits  them  to  enjoy  life  un marred  by  illegal  encroach- 
ments, they,  in  turn,  will  be  its  true  friends,  whether  they  be 
Christians,  Jews,  or  Mohammedans.  Nor  should  the  national 
descent,  foreign  or  native,  or  the  relations  of  race  and  the 
peculiar  complexion,  be  made  a  test  of  one's  attachment  to 
his  country.  For,  as  the  wise  Nathan  rejoins  to  the  bigot 
Templar,  "we  have  not  ourselves  made  choice  of  our  race." 
And  the  foreigner  having  settled  in  that  land  permanently, 
and  interwoven  his  interests  with  those  of  the  native  citizens, 
will  just  as  heartily  be  devoted  to  it  as  they,  provided  he  have 
equal  rights  and  liberties,  untainted  by  sectarian  prejudices, 
or  the  fanaticism  of  race.  He  will  be  devoted  to  it  both  as  a 
matter  of  course  and  of  necessity  ;  that  is,  from  gratitude  for 
the  protection  enjoyed,  as  well  as  from  the  latent  motive  of 
self-interest.  And,  I  think,  the  assertion  can  easily  be  sus- 
tained, that  this  motive  is  not  altogether  foreign  to  thousands 
of  non-Jews  glorying  in  their  patriotism.  They  are  necessa- 
rily concerned  in  the  welfare  and  safety  of  their  country. 
When  it  is  imperilled,  their  own  interests  are  so  also,  and 
therefore  they  watch  jealously  over  their  territory,  securing 
it  from  the  invasion  of  foreigners,  whu  would  injure  their 
property,  and  use  all  sorts  of  violence  against  them.  Com- 
mon patriotism  is  not  so  much  ardent  affection  for  the 
general  good,  as  implicit  or  disguised  love  for  one's  own 
fireside. 

But,  agreeing  that  all  patriotism  springs  from  pure  senti- 
ments of  gratitude  and  disinterested  attachment  to  one's 
country,  is  the  Jew  incapable  of  such  virtues?  As  little  as 
he  is  incapable  of  tender  love  to  his  parents.  He  will  very 


rarely  be  found  lacking  in  this  supreme  virtue.  It  is  infused 
into  his  mind  from  his  early  childhood  as  the  most  sacred 
obligation.  We  may  then  safely  conclude  that,  if  one  is  ten- 
derly attached  to  his  parents  for  being  his  kindest  benefac- 
tors, he  will  bear  a  similar  love  to  his  country,  if  it  also 
prove  a  true  benefactor  to  him. 

He  cannot  be  expected,  however,  to  love  it  more  than  his 
parents,  to  demand  which,  as  Cicero  did  in  his  treatise  upon 
duties,  would  be  quite  unnatural.  He  says :  "  Dear  are  the 
parents,  the  children,  the  relatives  and  friends,  yet  the 
endearments  of  all  these  are  comprised  in  the  one  common 
country,  for  which  no  good  man  will  hesitate  to  give  up  his 
life,  could  he  serve  and  benefit  it  thereby."  Such  a  doctrine 
was  tit  to  be  preached  in  Rome,  to  a  martial  nation,  given  to 
the  vainglory  of  subduing  all  the  rest  of  the  world  to  their 
iron  rule.  It  is  yet  preached  by  the  mercenaries  of  despotic 
governments,  to  inflame  the  passions  of  the  masses  for  a  war 
of  invasion  or  revenge  upon  another  nation.  Judaism  never 
made  such  an  extreme  demand  upon  the  human  heart  as  to 
hold  patriotism  the  highest  duty  of  all,  but  simply  enjoins  it 
as  great  and  sacred. 

And  the  Jews  commonly  heeded  this  injunction.  They 
loved  their  country  under  all  circumstances,  and  were  ever 
ready  to  sacrifice  individual  interests  and,  eventually,  their 
lives,  for  its  integrity  and  safety.  It  was  not  because  their 
ancient  country  had  the  name  of  Palestine  that  they  loved  it 
so  dearly,  but  because  they  cherished  the  inherited  belief  of 
God  superintending  it  specially  for  the  sake  of  their  fore- 
fathers, with  whom  He  had  made  a  covenant;  and  their 
polity  was  founded  on  the  venerable  Law  of  Moses,  which, 
if  properly  followed  and  executed,  would  secure  to  them  a 
state  of  peaceful  progress ;  besides  that,  the  national  temple 
was  their  religious  centre,  exercising  a  powerful  attraction 


upon  them.  Had  another  country  in  the  West,  affording 
them  like  advantages,  been  assigned  to  them,  they  would 
have  been  given  to  it  with  the  same  degree  of  devotion  as 
they  were  to  Palestine. 

They  lost  their  country  to  the  Babylonian  conqueror 
Nebuchadnezzar,  and  were  sorely  grieved.  What  nation 
would  not  have  been  grieved  at  having  to  surrender  their 
dear  country  and  its  ac«ustomed  institutions  ?  Does  it  follow 
therefrom  that,  if  the  exiles  found  in  the  new  country  shelter- 
ing homes  and  friendly  protection,  they  had  to  be  forever 
embittered  about  their  loss,  holding  themselves  forlorn  stran- 
gers amidst  kindly  benefactors,  and  continue  regardless  of  the 
well-being  of  others,  caring  only  for  themselves  ?  By  no 
means.  It  is  true  that  at  the  first  time  they  were  subjected  to 
many  hardships ;'  and  they  could  not  have  loved  their  hea- 
then masters  who  treated  them  cruelly  and  scoffed  at  their 
religion.  But  we  know  they  were  not  of  very  long  duration. 
The  exiles  must  have  materially  been  encouraged,  too,  by  the 
exhortations  of  the  inspired  prophets  who  shared  their  exile 
with  them,  such  as  Ezekiel  and  the  second  Isaiah,  the  great 
unknown.  Jeremiah's  pathetic  appeals,  who  communicated 
with  them  from  Jerusalem,  were  also  to  that  effect. 

These  prophets  pointed  out  to  them  the  sure  though  slow 
arrival  of  the  divine  help  and  deliverance  from  their  captivity. 
Thus  their  grief  subsided  in  course  of  time,  and  they  endur- 
ed their  existing  dependence  as  best  they  could.  They  took 
up  various  pursuits  in  which  they  were  left  unmolested,  and 
became  gradually  used  to  the  new  order  of  things. 

While  continuing  to  cherish  the  hope  of  restoration,  they 
did  not  fail  in  their  duties  to  the  Babylonian  government, 
which  for  the  most  part  consisted  in  paying  taxes  to  it,  their 

1  See  Isaiah  xlii.  22,  li.  13  ;  Ps.  cxxxiv.,  cxxix. 


communal  and  common  affairs  being,  from  the  beginning  of 
the  captivity,  conducted  by  a  ruler  of  their  own,  the  so-called 
Exilarch  ;  the  first  one  was  Shealthiel,  the  grandson  of  the 
exiled  prince  Jehoiachin.  In  his  family  this  dignity  was 
inherited  till  the  eleventh  century  of  the  Common  Era. 

To  be  loyal  to  their  gentile  rulers  they  were  heartily  ad- 
vised by  Jeremiah  in  a  letter  sent  to  them  from  Jerusalem  : 
"  Build  ye  houses  and  dwell  in  them,  and  plant  gardens  and 
eat  the  fruit  of  them  ;  take  ye  wives,  .  .  .  and  take  wives  for 
your  sons.  .  .  .  And  seek  the  peace  of  every  city  whither  I 
have  caused  you  to  be  carried  away  captives,  and  pray  unto 
the  Lord  for  it,  for  in  the  peace  thereof  shall  ye  have  peace  " 
(Jerem.  xxix.  5-7).  They  had  also  a  noble  example  of  true 
loyalty  in  Daniel,  who  was  made  ruler  over  the  whole  province 
of  Babylon  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (Dan.  ii.  48),  and  served  as 
minister  both  to  Darius  the  Mede,  and  to  Cyrus  (ib.  vi.  29). ' 
He  knew  how  to  combine  the  duties  of  a  loyal  citizen  and 
true  patriot  with  a  profound  veneration  and  pious  longing 
for  the  holy  city.  After  praying  three  times  a  day,  with  his 
face  turned  to  Jerusalem  (Dan.  vi.  11),  or  after  his  fervent 
supplication  that  "  God  may  cause  his  face  to  shine  again 
upon  His  sanctuary  that  is  desolate,"  he  could  with  refreshed 
spirits  return  to  the  duties  of  his  post  and  discharge  them 
not  the  less  faithfully  for  having  once  more  expressed  that 
veneration  and  longing  for  the  city  and  site  of  Israel's  deso- 
late sanctuary.  He  was,  no  doubt,  for  all  his  attachment  to 
the  far-off  holy  city,  as  true  to  his  charge,  as  any  minister  of 
a  modern  Christian  state  can  be  to  his. 

The  rest  of  the  Jewish  exiles  were  also,  for  aught  we  know, 

1  The  Assyrian  kings  had  already  Israelites  as  public  officers.  King 
Salnianasar  made  Tobit  his  purveyor.  Esarhaddon  appointed  the  lat- 
ter's  nephew  Achiacharus  over  his  father's  accounts,  and  over  all  his 
affairs  (Tobit  i.  13,  21). 


10 

dutiful  citizens  to  the  Babylonian  and  afterward  Persian 
rulers,  though  they  at  the  same  time  yearned  for  restoration. 
Cyrus  would  certainly  not  have  given  them  permission  to 
return  and  rebuild  the  city  and  temple  (Ezra  v.  14  ;  Josephus, 
Ant.,  xi.,  1),  had  they  not  deserved  such  royal  favor  by  their 
loyalty  to  him.  Nor  would  Artaxerxes  I.  have  granted  Ezra, 
the  scribe,  so  large  a  commission  and  bountiful  presents  for 
the  temple,  and  allowed  all  the  Jews  who  desired  it  to  accom- 
pany him  to  Jerusalem  in  459  (Ezra  vii.),  or  shown  such  kind 
regard  to  his  Jewish  cup-bearer  Nehemiah,  had  all  of  them 
not  proved  worthy  of  his  kindness. 

''There  was,"  says  Rawlinson,  "a  friendly  intimacy 
between  the  Persians  and  Jews  that  caused  the  latter  to 
continue  faithful  to  Persia  to  the  last,  and  to  brave  the 
conqueror  of  Issus  (Joseph ,  Ant.,  xi.,  8,  3),  rather  than 
desert  masters  who  had  showed  them  kindness  and  sym- 
pathy.1 

After  the  defeat  of  the  last  Achaemenian  monarch,  Darius 
Codomannus,  they  were  also  faithful  to  Alexander  the 
Great  and  his  successors  in  Syria  and  Egypt.  "They 
fought  in  the  armies  of  Xerxes  against  the  Greeks,  in  the 
service  of  the  Syrians  against  Rome  and  Egypt,  as  well 
as  in  the  latter  country  against  its  foes  from  without. 
Antiochus  the  Great  intrusted  two  thousand  Babylonian 
Jews  with  guarding  his  provinces  Lydia  and  Phrygia, 
where  a  sedition  had  broken  out;  for,  wrote  he  to  his 
general  Zeuxis,  "  I  am  persuaded  that  they  will  be  well- 
disposed  guardians  of  our  possessions,  because  of  their 
piety  towards  God,  and  because  .  .  .  they  are  faithful, 
and  with  alacrity  do  what  they  are  desired  to  do."2  Another 

1  The  Five  Great  Monarchies,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  340. 

2  Jos.  Ant.,  xii.,  3,  3. 


11 

Syrian  king,  Demetrius,  granted  to  the  Maccabee  Jon- 
athan that  there  be  enrolled  among  the  king's  forces  about 
thirty  thousand  Jews,  unto  whom  pay  shall  be  given  .  .  .  and 
of  them  some  shall  be  placed  in  the  king's  strongholds, 
of  whom  also  some  shall  be  set  over  the  affairs  of  the 
kingdom  which  are  of  trust."1 

When  the  Parthians  ruled  over  Babylonia,  the  Jews  were 
likewise  faithful  to  them.  They  even  joined  their  armies  in 
their  expeditions  to  the  West,  especially  against  Jerusalem.2 
The  Arsacidan  governors  were  generally  tolerant  in  religious 
matters,3  which  must  have  also  benefited  the  Jews.  Their 
sympathy  for  them  was  in  proportion  to  the  kind  treatment 
they  received  at  their  hands.  It  is  best  illustrated  by  the 
saying  of  a  rabbi  of  old,  who  compared  their  hosts  with  those 
of  king  David.4  But  for  all  their  attachment  to  the  Par- 
thian rulers  and  their  country,  the  Babylonian  Jews  did  not 
relax  their  pious  veneration  for  Jerusalem  and  its  temple. 
They  made  their  pilgrimage  there  in  the  holy  seasons  (Jos., 
Ant,  xvii.,  2),  paid  their  yearly  contribution  of  half  a  shekel 
to  wards  the  national  sanctuary  (ib.,  xviii.,  9),  and  made  them- 
selves, besides,  dependent  on  the  instructions  and  decisions 
of  the  great  council,  the  Synhedrin,  residing  at  Jerusalem, 
especially  in  calendarial  matters.  All  this  dependence  on  the 
mother  country  had.  however,  only  a  religious  bearing.  In 
political  respects,  they  felt  themselves  children  of  Babylonia, 
and  were  devoted  to  it  and  its  rulers  from  their  heart. 
Gradually  even  this  religious  dependence  on  Jerusalem 
decreased.  When  the  temple  was  no  more  and  the  culti- 
vation of  religious  science  had,  through  prominent  rabbis  of 

1  1  Mace.  x.  36.     See  Jost,  History  of  Judaism,  I.,  p.  2f)">. 
5Jost,  ib.,  p.  338. 

3  Vaux,  History  of  Persia,  p.  154. 

4  Kidushin,  p.  72. 


12 

their  own  academies,  as  those  of  Suva  and  Nehardea,  ad- 
vanced so  far  that  they  needed  no  longer  support  from  the 
mother  country,  the  Babylonian  Jews  tried  to  liberate  them- 
selves from  this  dependence.1  This  was  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  second  century  Com.  Era.  From  this  time  Babylonia  was 
respected  as  another  holy  land. 

To  one  great  Babylonian,  Mar  Samuel,  who  was  at  that 
time  president  of  the  academy  of  Nehardea,  belongs  the 
memorable  maxim :  "  The  law  of  the  country  has  to  rule 
us,"  were  it  even  in  conflict  with  some  of  our  religious  cus- 
toms. This  maxim  met  with  no  opposition  from  other 
rabbis,  but  was  readily  adopted  and  observed  by  all  the  Jews 
thereafter.  A  modern  Jewish  historian,  Gratz,  says  of  it, 
that  eminent  Babylonian  rabbi  translated  Jeremiah's  admo- 
nition of  old  into  a  religious  precept,  and  that  to  both  these 
leading  men  Judaism  owed  the  possibility  of  its  existence  in 
foreign  l.inds.2 

Samuel's  disciple,  Rab  Judah,  pronounced  it  even  a  sin  to 
emigrate  from  Babylonia  to  Palestine,  and  this  saying  was 
quite  congenial  to  the  sentiments  of  all  the  Jewish  people 
there,  who  had  a  profound  love  of  their  country  at  heart. 

Samuel's  patriotic  labors  tended  materially  to  soften  the 
sectarian  prejudices  nourished  against  the  Jews  through  the 
fanatic  Magi,  who  arose  to  great  influence  when  Ardeshir,  the 
first  Sassanian  king,  assumed  the  reins  of  the  Parthian  gov- 
ernment, in  226,  Common  Era.  Samuel  was  a  true  friend  to 
his  son  and  successor,  Sapores,  and  supported  him  with  all  his 
might  and  influence ;  he,  on  his  part,  was  very  priendly  to  his 
Jewish  subjects,  much  like  Cyrus  of  old.3 

After   following   up  the  history  of  the  exiles  and  their 

1  See  Mar  Samuel's  Life  by  Hoffman,  p.  '65. 

2  History  of  the  Jews,  IV. ,  p.  288. 

3  Hoffman,  p.  46. 


18 

descendants  in  Babylonia  through  more  than  eight  cen- 
turies, and  proving  from  it,  as  we  did,  their  patriotism  to 
the  various  gentile  governments,  let  us  also  review  briefly 
the  bearing  of  the  Egyptian  Jews  in  those  remote  periods. 

Those  of  Alexandria  in  Egypt  were  also  faithful  citizens, 
and  equal  rights  with  the  Macedonians  were  given  them  by 
Alexander  the  Great,  "because  he  had,  upon  a  careful  trial, 
found  them  all  to  have  been  men  of  virtue  and  fidelity  to 
him "  (Josephus  against  Apion,  ii.,  4).  Ptolemy,  son  of 
Lagus,  "  intrusted  the  fortresses  of  Egypt  into  their  hands, 
as  believing  they  would  keep  them  faithfully  and  valiantly 
for  him  "  (ib.).  Ptolemy  Philometor  and  his  wife  Cleopatra 
"committed  their  whole  kingdom  to  Jews,  when  Onias  and 
Dositheus,  both  Jews,  were  the  generals  of  their  army  "  (ib.). 
These  Jews,  loyal  to  the  crown,  brought  also  the  insurgent 
Alexandrians  "to  terms  of  agreement,  and  freed  them  from 
the  miseries  of  a  civil  war."  And  it  was  Onias  who  "under- 
took a  war  against  the  usurper  Ptolemy  Physco,  on 
Cleopatra's  account ;  nor  would  he  desert  that  trust  the  royal 
family  had  reposed  in  him,  in  their  distress."  His  army  was 
mainly  composed  of  Jews,  as  is  evident  from  Josephus' 
report.  And  these  Jews  were  as  loyal  and  patriotic  to  the 
Egyptian  line  as  the  English  race  ever  could  be  to  Her 
Majesty  in  any  critical  condition  of  her  empire. 

Speak  of  patriotism  as  the  exclusive  property  of  the 
"English  race,"  when  the  Egyptian  Jews,  though  followers 
of  Jehovah,  had  already  in  such  a  remote  period,  from 
Alexander  to  Augustus,  proved  a  sincere  and  valorous 
devotion  to  gentile  governments !  They  were  as  little  urged 
to  it  by  a  "Jewish  and  plutopolitan  motive,"  as  any  descen- 
dant of  the  Saxons,  who  worshipped  the  great  Woden,  the 
German  god  of  war,  can  ever  be  suspected  of  a  similar  motive, 
when  called  by  his  country  to  defend  and  protect  her  interests. 


14 

Let  us  also  examine  Jewish  patriotism  in  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees.  For  although  their  only  aim  was  to  save  the 
Jewish  state  and  religious  institutions  from  the  reckless 
violence  of  the  Syrians,  it  must  be  conceded  that  people  who 
are  so  warmly  attached  to  their  country  as  to  fly  to  arms  and 
fight  bravely  for  maintaining  and  restoring  civil  and  religious 
liberty  to  themselves  and  their  countrymen,  are  patriots 
indeed,  whether  they  hail  from  the  East  or  the  West,  and 
be  their  religious  creed  whatever  it  may.  Such  stanch  and 
heroic  men,  urged  by  the  dictates  of  their  brave  spirit  to 
help  rescuing  their  country  from  present  or  impending  perils, 
would  do  the  same  and  manifest  the  same  patriotic  zeal  for 
the  threatened  interests  of  England  or  America  as  for  Judea. 
Politically,  Judea  was  to  the  Maccabees  no  more  and  no 
dearer  than  England  or  America  is  to  any  of  her  present 
Jewish  citizens,  enjoying  as  they  do  equally  with  those  of  the 
Christian  faith  all  civil  rights  and  the  beneficial  protection 
of  the  law.  History  exhibits  no  more  illustrious  patterns  of 
patriotism  than  the  Maccabees.  When  Antiochus  Epiphaues 
issued  and  enforced  his  edict  that  all  the  Jews  of  his  empire 
should  forsake  their  religion,  enacting  the  first  religious 
persecution  against  our  race,  the  venerable  Mattathiss, 
a  resident  priest  of  Modin,  arose  and  lamented  bitterly: 
"  Woe  me !  wherefore  was  I  born  to  see  this  misery  of  my 
people  and  of  the  holy  city !"  (1  Mac.  ii.  7).  Nor  did  he  stop 
short  at  mere  remonstrance ;  he  left  his  comfortable  home,  and, 
summoning  all  the  courage  of  his  old  age,  worked  zealously 
with  his  sons  and  followers,  few  as  they  were,  to  rescue  the 
sacred  Law  from  the  revilements  of  the  heathen  (ib.  ii.  48). 
The  maintenance  of  this  Law  was  to  the  Maccabees 
identical  with  that  of  their  political  independence.  Church 
and  state  were  to  the  Israelitish  commonwealth  of  old  one 
and  the  same.  The  Mosaic  Code  was  their  law,  governing 


15 

both  their  civil  and  religious  affairs.  To  secure  that  law 
from  outward  infringements  and  profanation  was  the  noble 
task  of  the  Maccabees. 

To  that  end  Judas  Maccabee  fought  the  powerful  armies 
of  the  Syrians,  who  were  bent  on  destroying  the  land  and  the 
people.  He  and  his  brothers  led  the  brave  warriors  with  the 
fixed  purpose  of  relieving  their  downtrodden  brethren,  and 
recovering  both  their  independence  and  the  security  of  the 
national  sanctuary  (ib.  iii.  43).  Judas'  brother  Eleazar,  "  put 
himself  in  jeopardy  to  the  end  he  might  deliver  his  people," 
(ib.  vi.  44).  When  Judas'  position  against  Bacchides  be- 
came so  desperate  that  his  men  warned  him  against  ven- 
turing upon  an  engagement  with  the  superior  forces  of  the 
enemy,  asking  him  to  retreat  for  a  while  until  they  could  be 
reinforced  by  others  troops,  he  would  not  heed  their  advice, 
rejoining  resolutely :  "  God  forbid  that  I  should  do  this 
thing  and  flee  away  from  them :  if  our  time  be  come,  let  us 
die  manfully  for  our  brethren  and  let  us  not  stain  our  honor  " 
(ib.  ix.  10)." 

He  died,  indeed,  in  the  ensuing  battle,  for  his  brethren 
whom  he  strove  so  patriotically  to  relieve  and  save.  Such 
patriotism  has  never  been  surpassed.  His  own  patriotic  zeal 
kindled  that  of  his  brave  followers,  so  that  they  were  ready 
to  die  "  for  the  laws  arid  the  country  "  (ib.  ii.  8,  21,  see  also  ib. 
11,  7  and  13,  10).  They  prepared  themselves  for  the  bloody 
task  by  fasting,  praying,  and  other  religious  exercises,  leaving 
their  camp  for  the  battle-field  with  the  memorable  watch- 
word :  "  The  help  of  God  "  or  "  Victory  is  of  God  "  (ib.  ii.  8, 
23 ;  13,  15). 

Can  the  members  of  the  English  race  consecrate  their 
patriotism  in  a  more  appropriate  way?  Would  that  all, 
Christians  and  Jews,  follow  the  noble  example  of  the 


16 

Maccabean  heroes,  whenever  they  are  called  upon  to  defend 
a  good  cause ! 

Who  must  not  wonder  at  the  remarkable  valor  displayed 
by  the  Jews  in  their  tremendous  struggle  of  independence 
against  the  Romans  which  was  carried  on  for  five  years,  from 
65  to  70,  Common  Era.  This  struggle  resembles  the  Ameri- 
can Revolution  in  many  respects.  The  Jews  had  the  same 
grievances  against  the  Roman  dominion  as  the  American  colo- 
nies against  the  English;  theirs  were  even  more  and  stronger. 
The  Romans  levied  exorbitant  taxes  upon  the  inhabitants  of 
the  Jewish  provinces;  of  course,  without  their  consent,  as 
the  colonists  complained  in  our  Declaration.  Since  Augustus 
subdued  Judea  and  incorporated  it  as  a  province  into  the 
Roman  empire,  their  duties  and  the  way  of  exacting  them 
became  more  and  more  intolerable.  This  provoked  their 
keen  discontent  and  a  strong  desire  for  redress.  They  had 
formerly,  without  opposition,  borne  the  most  burdensome 
taxation.  Until  the  time  of  Antiochus  the  Great  they  were 
paying  to  their  foreign  rulers  the  poll-money,  the  crown-tax, 
and  other  taxes  (Jos.,  Ant.,  xii.,  3,  3).  The  tribute  imposed  by 
him  and  his  successors  was  also  oppressive  enough  (1  Mace, 
xii.  29-31,  42  ;  xi.  34-35).  The  Jews  calmly  submitted  to  it. 

The  new  Roman  system,  however,  with  all  its  heinous 
annoyances,  stung  their  national  pride  to  the  quick  and 
offended  their  feelings  greatly.  It  was  heinous  to  them,  not 
from  any  superstition,  because  their  names  were  to  be  entered 
in  the  tax-roll  which  would  be  sinful,  like  David's  numbering 
the  people  (2  Sam.  xxiv.),  as  Renan  states  in  his  Life  of 
Jesus.  We  are  not  informed  by  the  historians  that  their 
religious  sentiments  rebelled  against  the  enrollment  itself. 
It  was  only  the  taxation  by  Quirinius  "of  their  substance,'* 

'Jos.,  Ant.,  xviii.,  1,  1. 


17 

their  income,  that  aroused  their  disaffection,  as  it  would  open 
the  way  for  dishonest  practices  and  cruel  exactions  by  the 
tax  farmers.  Their  hard-earned  produce  was  now  valued  by 
irresponsible  publicans.  Subjecting  it  to  a  fluctuating  price, 
they  could  the  easier  defraud  the  Jewish  husbandmen. 

This  class  of  Roman  officers  was  generally  corrupt,  exhib- 
iting such  an  infamous  greediness  that  they  were  shunned 
and  hated  by  all.  Jesus  was  aware  of  it  when  he  told  those 
coming  to  him  to  be  baptized :  "  Exact  no  more  than  that 
which  is  appointed  you  (Luke  Hi.  13).  The  popular  voice 
branded  them  as  sinners  (ib.  xix.  7),  an  appellation  too  rnild^ 
indeed,  for  such  pitiless  wretches.  For  they  not  only  taxed 
the  substance  of  the  people  at  their  arbitrary  estimate,  they 
frequently  brought  to  account  those  who  were  unable  to  pay. 
This  we  learn  from  an  old  Jewish  source  (Pesikta,  Shekalim, 
p.  11) :  "  The  Romans  first  ask  the  poll-tax,  then  the  demos 
(the  state  tax),  and  the  eranos  (another  tribute),  and,  if  one 
cannot  pay,  he  has  to  swear  to  it,  and  to  suffer  corporal 
penalties." 

Such  abuses,  entailed  by  the  new  system  of  taxation,  must 
have  provoked  even  the  most  peaceable  citizens.  It  is  very 
likely,  therefore,  that  the  movement  of  Judas,  of  Galilee,  the 
founder  of  the  party  of  the  zealots,  against  it  in  the  "  days  of 
taxing,"  sprang  from  these  abuses,  real  and  apprehended, 
rather  than  from  his  opposition  to  paying  tribute  at  all,  were 
it  justly  imposed  and  collected.  Josephus  does  not  say1 
that  he  dissuaded  the  people  from  paying  it  at  the  first 
introduction  of  the  census,  so  we  are  free  to  presume  he  did 
so  only  after  this  vicious  system  had  been  in  operation  for 
some  time. 

But  admitting   that  he   and  his  zealous  partisans  were 

'Jos.,  Wars,  ii.,  8,  1. 


18 

fiercely  opposed  to  Roman  taxation  at  all,  were  they  to 
blame  for  it?  It  was  altogether  too  burdensome.  The 
Jews  were  already  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius  so  much  borne 
down  by  the  tribute  that  they  had  to  appeal  to  him  for  its 
diminution  (Tacitus  Annal.,  ii.,  42).  Even  Jesus  was  oppos- 
ed to  it  as  an  unheard-of  irregularity  (Matthew,  xvii.  24), 
disapproving  only  its  open  refusal  (ib.  xxii.  15).  In  like 
manner  did  the  rabbis  warn  from  eluding  the  tribute 
(Talmud,  Succah,  p.  30),  though  they  felt  the  Roman  oppres- 
sion as  deeply  as  their  common  brethren. 

And  were  these  not  patient  long  enough?  For  nearly 
sixty  years,  from  the  beginning  of  the  census,  they  endured 
the  most  inhuman  exactions  without  resorting  to  an  open 
revolt,  until  it  was  inevitable. 

It  was  mainly  brought  on  through  the  Roman  procurators, 
who  were,  with  few  exceptions,  unprincipled,  greedy,  and 
cruel  men,  offering  the  greatest  insults  to  the  Jews  and  their 
religious  sentiments. 

Pilate  brought  by  stealth  the  images  of  Tiberius  into  the 
holy  city,  an  aifront  the  Jews  could  not  bear,  from  their  reli- 
gious horror  of  all  image  worship.  Petrouius  was  to  place 
Caligula's  statues  in  the  temple  at  the  emperor's  request. 
The  contemptuous  behavior  of  a  Roman  soldier  under 
Cumanus,  and  this  man's  insolent  disregard  of  the  Jewish 
rights,  increased  the  dissatisfaction.  The  emperor  Claudius 
was  urged  to  banish  him  for  it.  The  same  Claudius,  who,  as 
L'acitus  reports,  "  gave  over  the  province  of  Judea  to  Roman 
knights  and  freedmen,  one  of  whom,  Felix,  wielded  the 
despotic  power  with  a  knavish  spirit,  committing  all  kinds 
of  cruelty  and  tyranny."1  "And  yet,"  adds  this  historian, 
"did  the  Jews  keep  patience  until  Florus  became  procura- 
tor; under  him  the  war  bioke  out." 

'Histor.,  v.,  9. 


19 

This  corrupt  and  rapacious  hireling  stole  seventeen  talents 
out  of  the  temple  treasury,  and  "  publicly  proclaimed  it  all 
the  country  over,  that  all  had  liberty  given  them  to  turn  rob- 
bers, upon  this  condition,  that  he  might  go  shares  with  them 
in  the  spoils."1 

Such  outrages  perpetrated  by  the  Roman  authorities  and 
soldiery  were  beyond  bearing.  They  had  to  look  on  them 
as  fixed  enemies.  No  wonder,  then,  that  the  patriots  rose 
up  zealously  in  defence  of  their  honor  and  liberty.  Had 
they  been  unanimous,  not  divided  into  factions,  each  pursu- 
ing the  aim  of  independence  in  its  own  way,  the  Roman 
power  might  have  been  crushed  at  the  outbreak  of  the  revo- 
lution. But  despite  their  party  conflicts,  they  were  one  in 
their  exasperation  at  the  Ro.ni an  outrages,  and  all  of  them 
were  kindled  with  a  sincere,  patriotic  zeal.  They  aimed  at 
no  worldly  gain ;  all  they  strove  to  acquire  was  personal  and 
religious  freedom.  For  this  they  were  ready  to  die.  Their 
glory  is  by  no  means  diminished  by  the  co-existence  of  a 
class  of  low  Jews,  who  were  gratifying  their  grudge  against 
suspected  opponents- of  the  common  cause  by  frequent  assas- 
sinations, or  who  sought  to  profit  by  the  disorder  and 
anarchy  of  those  excited  times.  It  is  true  there  were  then 
Sicarii,  robbers,  among  the  Jews.  But  to  speak  of  the  war- 
riors of  the  revolution  as  robbers,  as  the  Jewish  historian 
Josephus  did,  is  a  flagrant  calumny.  He  calls  John  of 
Gischala  a  tyrant,  his  men  robbers,  and  all  the  revolution- 
ists "the  seditious."  But  they  deserved  these  opprobrious 
names  as  little  as  the  heroes  of  the  American  revolution 
deserved  to  be  called  rebels  by  the  British. 

History  chronicles  no  more  signal  defence  of  a  beloved 
place  than  that  by  the  Jewish  patriots  of  their  temple  in  the 
last  phase  of  their  fearful  struggle,  when  all  the  factions  of 

1  Josephus,  Wars,  xiv.,  2. 


20 

the  zealots  forgot  their  mutual  hostilities  in  their  common 
interest  to  save  that  national  sanctuary.  Even  the  peaceful 
and  retired  sect  of  the  Essenes  took  up  arms  against  the 
common  foe,  like  a  large  number  of  Quakers  in  the  American 
war  who  joined  the  Philadelphia  companies  to  fight  for 
independence,  though  their  religious  scruples  forbade  them 
the  use  of  arms. 

The  Roman  legions,  led  by  Titus,  when  about  to  raise 
banks  against  the  tower  of  Antonia,  were  greatly  discouraged, 
because  "  they  found  the  Jews'  courageous  souls  to  be 
superior  to  the  multitude  of  the  miseries  they  were  under." 
Even  Josephus,  while  he  could  but  belittle  the  merits  of  the 
revolutionists,  declared,  at  the  same  time,  their  courage  to 
be  "peculiar  to  our  nation  "  (Wars,  vi.,  1,  3  . 

This  very  courage  it  was  that  kept  the  Jewish  patriots 
fighting  to  the  last.  Although  Josephus  states  elsewhere 
that  their  great  encouragements  were  " their  fear  for  them- 
selves and  for  their  temple  and  the  presence  of  the  tyrant," 
John  of  Gischala,  whom  he  reports  to  have  boasted  ;'  that 
he  did  never  fear  the  taking  of  Jerusalem,  because  it  was 
God's  own  city,"  we  know  that  it  was  only  his  personal 
grudge  against  this  leader  that  bade  him  deny  the  bravery 
of  the  Jewish  warriors  at  that  time.  Their  high  cour- 
age and  great  patriotism,  however,  availed  them  nothing. 
The  fortress  of  Antonia  fell,  and  then  the  temple.  But 
it  took  the  Romans  fully  six  weeks  before  the  tem- 
ple was  destroyed.  The  Roman  colossus  had  to  strug- 
gle hard  with  the  "constancy  and  patience  of  the*  Jews 
even  under  their  ill-successes,"  a  confession  made  by  Titus 
himself  in  his  address  to  the  army  (Wars,  vi.,  1,  5). 

In  this  theatre  of  war  there  were  famous  actors,  such  as 
Eleazar,  John,  and  Simon,  and  hundreds  of  other  patriots 
who  fought  gallantly,  in  the  severe  straits  of  famine,  for 


21 

their  independence  and  freedom.  "There  were  more  Jews 
who  furnished  themselves  with  arms  for  the  defence  of  the 
national  cause  than  could  actually  participate,"  reports 
Tacitus,  adding,  moreover,  that,  "in  firmness  the  Jewish 
women  were  equal  to  the  men ;  and  when  the  Jews  were 
forced  to  surrender  their  positions,  they  manifested  a  greater 
fear  of  life  than  death."1  If  such  an  historian  as  Tacitus, 
who  was  all  but  a  friend  of  the  Jews,  bears  testimony  to 
their  great  valor  and  patriotic  zeal,  we  can  easily  pass  over 
their  denunciation  as  robbers  by  Josephus,  who  was,  never- 
theless, bold  enough  to  say  that,  "  while  he  is  alive,  he 
would  never  be  in  such  a  slavery  as  to  forego  his  own 
kindred." 

Jerusalem  fell  a  second  time.  The  temple  was  laid  in 
ashes.  The  Jewish  state  ceased.  The  insolent  victors  took 
the  most  cruel  advantage  over  the  captive  matron,  Judea. 
The  survivors  of  the  bloody  struggle  were  at  the  mercy  of 
the  Romans.  And  now  they  began  to  scatter  broadcast 
over  all  parts  of  the  inhabited  globe.  Vespasian  converted 
the  traditional  yearly  temple  tax  of  the  didrachma  into  a 
tribute  to  the  Capitol  of  Rome,  initiating  the  famous  Jew 
tax  that  lasted,  in  its  various  modifications,  more  than  seven- 
teen hundred  years,  as  an  emblem  either  of  the  longevity  of 
the  Jews  or  of  undying  prejudice.  This  tribute  was  levied 
alike  on  the  eastern  and  western  Jews.  It  seems,  however, 
to  have  been  abolished  after  Vespasian's  death,  because  we 
are  told  that  the  Jewish  patriarchs  of  Palestine  used  to  col- 
lect it  for  themselves  until  Emperor  Theodosius  II.  peremp- 
torily decided  it  must  be  paid  into  the  imperial  treasury,  in 
the  year  429. 

This  tribute  was  afterwards  claimed  by  the  German  em- 
perors, who  assumed  also  the  title  and  privileges  of  Roman 

1  Ib.  v.  13. 


22 

kings.  The  Schwabenspiegel,  one  of  the  oldest  German 
codes  of  law,  edited  before  the  year  1276,  speaks  of  the  Jews 
as  the  property  of  the  German -Roman  empire  inherited  from 
Titus,  and  that  they,  therefore,  stood  under  its  immediate 
protection.  In  reward  for  such  protectorate,  the  German 
emperors,  from  the  tenth  centuiy  on,  asked  of  the  Jews  that 
ancient  tribute  under  the  name  of  crown  money  (aururn  coro- 
narium).  Had  it  proved  efficient,  securing  their  life  and 
property,  it  would  have  well  been  worth  its  amount — one 
Rhenish  gilder  for  every  Jewish  head  of  twelve  years  on  every 
Christmas.  But  neither  could  the  best  of  the  emperors  pro- 
tect them  thoroughly,  nor  did-  they  confine  their  claims  upon 
the  Jews  to  that  yearly  tribute  alone.  They  had,  besides,  to 
pay  to  each  one  after  his  election  the  so-called  third  penny 
or  the  crown  tax,  as  a  ransom  for  their  lives  that  could  be 
taken  by  him,  according  to  a  later  interpretation,  any  time  at 
his  pleasure ;  only  that  he  would  have  to  leave  alive  a  few 
for  a  constant  memorial.  Thereto  was  added  the  common  tax 
on  their  real  estate,  half  of  which  belonged  to  the  emperor, 
and  the  other  half  to  the  provincial  or  municipal  authorities. 
Then  came  the  tenth  penny,  a  kind  of  income  tax  for  their 
privilege  of  free  traffic.  Then  certain  obligatory  presents  to 
some  state  officials.  They  had  also  to  furnish  the  parchment 
for  the  chancery  of  the  empire,  and  at  Frankfort,  to  lend  all 
the  bedding  required  for  the  imperial  court,  whenever  it  held 
its  session  there.  In  the  train  of  these  impositions  was  the 
tithe  collected  by  the  churches,  and  other  arbitrary  requisitions 
by  princes  and  ecclesiastical  rulers. 

Such  were  their  duties  during  the  middle  ages,  and  in  part 
to  the  end  of  the  last  century.  Were  they  to  love  a  country 
crushing  them  with  intolerable  burdens "?  And  did  these 
secure  them  life  and  property  ?  They  did  not. 

A  regular  system  of  massacre  and  pillage  was  inaugurated 


23 

against  them  from  the  beginning  of  the  crusades,  those  "  wild, 
and  romantic  adventures."  The  best  meaning  emperors  and 
citizens  were  generally  unable  to  prevent  and  sometimes  even 
to  suppress  these  persecutions.  The  "  holy  warriors  "  gave 
the  Jews  the  alternative  of  conversion  or  death,  or  simply 
plundered  them  under  the  pretext  of  their  being  outlawed 
enemies  of  Christ.  Count  Emicho  had  in  the  first  crusade 
alone  appropriated  12,000  ducats  of  the  Jews'  money.  The 
Archbishop  of  Mayence  himself  was  believed -to  have  shared 
in  the  spoils  of  the  then  plundered  Jews  of  that  city.  Some  of 
his  near  relatives  were  on  solid  testimony  held  to  account 
for  participating  in  that  robbery  by  Henry  IV.,  who,  on 
his  return  to  the  empire  in  1098,  was  earnestly  intent  on  all 
possible  restitution  being  made  to  the  Jews  who  had  lost  so 
much  in  the  bloody  raids,  or  were  the  heirs  of  the  victims 
two  years  before.  Even  the  property  of  the  Jews  yielding 
to  conversion,  forced  on  them  in  these  benighted  times,  was 
not  always  safe.  Some  kings  and  princes  losing  through 
their  conversion  the  regular  Jewish  revenue,  sought  to  in- 
demnify themselves  by  confiscating  their  property,  though 
they  were  now  nominal  Christians.1  This  was  a  short  and 
easy  financial  process,  as  was  that  of  the  noble  kings  John 
and  Henry  III.,  of  England,  the  former  imprisoning  his  Jews 
to  force  them  to  surrender  their  money,  from  one  of  whom 
were  taken  seven  teeth,  one  on  each  subsequent  day,  till  on 
the  eighth  he  ransomed  the  remainder  of  his  teeth  at  the  pi-ice 
demanded,  10,000  marcs  of  silver  ;  the  latter  extorting  10,000 
marcs  from  the  Jews  by  making  ten  of  their  richest  men 
bound  for  their  payment.2  Well  may  the  "English  race" 
be  "  proud  "  of  such  magnanimous  princes,  and  "  happy  "  to 
count  them  among  the  leaders  of  English  Christian  civilization  ! 

1  Montesquieu,  L'esprit  des  lois,  II.,  21,  16,  who  states  that  this  out- 
rageous practice  had  been  abolished  by  law  in  1392. 
-  Tovey,  Anglia  Judaica. 


24 

The  Christian  Councils  held  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Frank  and  Visigoth  rnonarchs  sowed  the  seed  of  intolerance 
against  the  Jews  which  soon  grew  into  a  rank  crop.  Greedy 
potentates,  fanatic  and  rapacious  masses,  and  demoralized 
priests  were  eagerly  gathering  it.  They  drove  the  Jews  out 
of  the  pale  of  society,  nay  treated  them  as  outcasts  of  human- 
ity deserving  no  human  sympathy.  The  Christian  law  of  the 
Middle  Ages  forbade  the  Jews  to  hold  Christian  servants. 
When  they  had  to  take  an  oath  in  court,  they  were  compelled 
to  stand  on  a  hog-skin,  repeating  after  the  magistrate  the 
most  abominable  execrations  as  a  threat  for  perjury.  To  be 
outwardly  known  from  Christians,  as  their  complexion  was 
often  deceiving,  they  had  to  wear  badges  on  their  clothes,  as 
if  their  common  "badge  of  sufferance  "  alone  had  not  sufficed 
to  distinguish  them  from  others. 

The  Council  at  Narbonne,  in  1227,  decreed  it  should  be  of 
cloth  in  the  form  of  a  wheel,  and  the  synod  of  Augsburg, 
in  1452,  was  seriously  engaged  in  ordering  separate  badges 
for  both  sexes,  a  round  rag  of  'saffron  color  about  the  breas 
for  the  male,  and  two  grayish  ruffles  for  the  female  Jews. 
Those  of  England  had  to  wear  a  yellow  badge,  by  virtue  of 
an  act  of  Parliament  under  Edward  I.  They  were  not  long 
adorned  with  it,  however,  that  generous  king  expelling  them 
from  his  domain  in  the  year  1290. 

Another  mark  of  distinction  was  the  Jew  hat.  The  synod 
of  Vienna,  in  1267,  and  of  Salzburg,  in  1418.  made  it  a  penal 
law  for  the  Jews  to  wear  cornered  hats,  that  they  might  be 
known  distinctly  from  Christians.  Susskind  von  Trimberg, 
the  homeless  Jewish  minstrel  of  the  13th  century,  alludes  in 
his  poems,  as  Delitzsch1  supposes,  to  this  monstrous  out- 
growth of  Christian  intolerance. 

The  German  emperors  and  the  kings  and  princes  of 
Christian  Europe  assuming  the  ownership  of  their  dependent 

1  See  Orient  of  1840,  p.  145  seq. 


25 

Jews,  they  were  from  time  to  time  presented  by  them  as 
gifts,  or  mortgaged  like  inanimate  property  to  other  rulers  or 
imperial  cities.  Every  public  calamity  was  laid  to  their 
charge,  even  the  pestilence  of  1348-50  that  ravaged  fearfully 
throughout  Eui'ope.  They  were  falsely  act-used  of  having 
poisoned  the  wells,  and  thereby  caused  that  fell  plague. 
Innumerable  innocent  Jews  were  then  murdered  or  publicly 
burned  at  the  stake ;  their  princely  protectors  could  not 
overawe  the  excited  populace.  In  the  Age  of  Reformation, 
when  a  broader  intelligence  began  to  spread  among  the 
masses,  releasing  their  benumbed  minds  from  the  bane  of 
religious  ignorance,  the  wholesale  massacres  and  pillages  of 
the  Jews  ceased,  to  give  way  only  to  their  wholesale  expul- 
sions from  their  oldest  settlements. 

Could  they  have  loved  a  country  where  their  race  was 
doomed  to  continued  oppression,  misery,  and  disgrace,  and 
kept  in  constant  jeopardy  of  life  and  property?  Had  they 
really  a  country  in  the  dark  Middle  Ages  ?  No,  they  had 
"  but  the  grave." 

And  yet  even  in  these  barbarous  ages  the  Jews  were  not 
wanting  in  patriotism  to  those  communities  w  hose  government 
and  gentile  citizens  had  sense  of  humanity  enough  to  treat 
them  as  human  beings,  if  not  as  equal  brethren.  Not  to 
speak  of  the  many  high  and  honorable  positions  given  to 
prominent  Jews  of  Mohammedan  Spain,  I  will  quote  several 
instances  of  the  kind  occurring  in  Christian  countries  proper. 

It  can  be  proved  beyond  doubt  that,  despite  the  Christian 
law  forbidding  the  Jews  to  hold  administrative  or  judicial 
offices,  or  to  serve  in  the  armies  of  Christian  states  ev.en  in 
urgent  cases  of  defense,1  some  princes  and  communities  be- 

1  Edict  of  Theodosius  II.  from  the  year  439.  Only  the  burdensome 
and  expensive  office  of  decurions  was  allowed  to  or  rather  imposed  on 
them  by  Constantino,  according  to  his  order  for  Cologne  in  321,  and 
afterward  by  Justinian. 


26 

stowed  various  posts  of  honor  and  trust  on  such  of  their  Jews 
as  they  found  trustworthy  and  able.  In  one  of  the 
gloomiest  periods  of  Jewish  history,  in  the  year  1259,  the 
provincial  Council  of  Mayence  issued  an  ordinance  forbidding 
the  Jews  to  continue  in  any  secular  dignity  or  public  office.1 
This  shows  that  they  were  until  then  actually  occupying 
such  positions. 

Duke  Leopold  of  Austria,  in  the  twelfth  century,  had  a 
Jew,  Solomon,  appointed  as  superintendent  of  his  mint,  au 
office  of  trust  he  held  also  under  his  son  and  successor,  Fred- 
erick.2 Two  Jewish  brothers,  Lublin  and  Nekelo,  were 
functionaries  of  an  Austrian  Duke,  about  the  year  1257. 3  it 
may  not  be  amiss  to  mention  here  also,  that  the  Jewish 
physicians  of  the  middle  ages,  were,  notwithstanding  the  con- 
trary ecclesiastical  injunctions,4  of  great  service  to  many 
municipalities,  popes,  and  princes.  Even  the  bigoted 
Duke  Albrecht  of  Bavaria,  the  grandson  of  the  Emperor 
Lewis,  in  his  sickness,  sent  abroad  for  a  Jewish  doctor, 
Jacob,  who  attended  him  in  his  palace  till  he  was  cured. 
This  was  in  the  year  1392. 

And  though  the  old  German-Christian  law  interdicted  the 
Jews  to  bear  arms,5  they  knew  nevertheless  how  to  wield 
and  use  them  in  their  own  defense/'  as  well  as  of  those 
governments  and  cities  which  afforded  them  protection. 

1  Mansi,  Conciliorum  nova  collectio,  vol.  xxiii.,  p.  997. 

-  Monumanta  boica,  IV.,  No.  115. 

;  Meickelbeck,  Historia  Frisingensis,  II.,   p.  47. 

4  The  council  of  Vienna,  1267,  ordered   that  no  Jewish  physician 
should  practise  in  Christian  families. 

5  Sachsenspiegel,  libr.  iii.,  art.  "2. 

6  During  their   persecution   by  Rindfleisch.    in  1298,   the  forts  of 
Nuremberg  and  Neumarkt   were  offered   them  as   places   of   refuge. 
Therein  they  defended  themselves  by  force  of   arms,  many  Christians 
of  those   cities  joining  and  assisting  them.     Pertz,  Monumenta  Ger- 


27 

When  once,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  the  city  of  Worms 
was  besieged,  Rabbi  Eleazar,  the  leading  divine  of  the  Jews 
there,  requested  them  to  fly  to  arms,  and  this  on  a  Sabbath 
day,  as  he  considered  it  their  urgent  duty  to  defend  the 
threatened  place.1  King  Philip  the  Handsome,  of  France, 
is  said  to  have  had  thirty  thousand  Jews  in  his  army,  in  his 
expedition  against  Count  Guy  of  Flanders,  1297,  who  had 
renounced  his  allegiance  to  him  Whether  he  levied  them 
against  their  will  is  not  reported,  though  it  is  very  likely, 
from  his  tyranny  to  his  Jews  soon  after,  that  he  aimed  to 
expose  them  to  the  fatal  chances  of  the  first  engagements, 
as  the  chronicler  has  it.2 

The  Jews  had  also  in  previous  centuries  proved  their  sin- 
cere patriotism  and  bravery  in  defense  of  Christian  cities. 
The  Jews  of  Aries  in  France,  after  it  was  conquered  by  the 
Visigoth  king  Euric,  in  477,  enjoyed  perfect  liberty  and 
equality,  and  were  in  return  so  much  attached  to  the  city 
that  they  offered  readily  their  lives  in  its  defense.  ^Vhen 
it  was  besieged  by  the  Franks  and  Burgundians,  in  508, 
they  held  firmly  to  the  rightful  king,  resisting  by  force  of 
arms  the  assaults  of  the  invaders.  They  disclosed  also  the 
traitorous  conspiracy  of  the  bishop  Cassarius  against  the 
city,  for  which  he  was  sentenced  to  prison.3 

Likewise  did  the  Jews  of  Naples  exhibit  a  brave  spirit 
when  it  was  threatened  with  immediate  danger  by  the 
besieging  forces  of  the  Byzantine  conqueror.  Belisarius. 

mani;i:,  vol.  xvii.,  p.  41!>. — The  Christian  community  of  Augsburg 
guarded  their  Jews  from  the  assaults  of  this  villain.  Out  of  gratitude 
for  it,  they  built  at  their  own  expense,  alongside  their  cemetery,  a 
wall  for  the  protection  of  the  city. 

1  Kokeach,  §  I'.Hj,  a  treatise  by  the  same  rabbi  on  Jewish  rites  and 
customs.  *  2  Pertz,  Mouumenta  Germanize,  xvii.,  p.  417. 

Dr.  H.  Gross  in  Griitz'  Monatschrift,  March,  1878. 


28 

He  was  sent,  at  the  command  of  the  Emperor  Justinian, 
to  take  the  city  by  force,  in  536.  The  Jewish  inhabitants, 
who  were  enjoying  greater  toleration  than  their  brethren 
living  in  the  Byzantine  empire,  held  themselves  bound  to 
their  king,  the  Ostrogoth  Theodoric,  and  would  not 
forsake  him  in  the  hour  of  peril.  They  called  upon  their 
gentile  fellow- citizens  to  stand  up  resolutely  in  the  de- 
fense of  their  common  liberties,  offering  even  to  furnish 
the  entire  population  gratuitously  with  the  necessaries  of 
life  during  the  siege.  Their  own  companies  held  the  sea- 
side all  alone,  fully  prepared  to  meet  the  foe,  who,  however, 
did  not  dare  to  attack  this  so  well-defended  part  of  the  city. 
They  met  bravely  all  the  dangers  surrounding  them  at  last, 
when  one  night  the  foe  suddenly  broke  into  the  city,  and 
captured  it  after  a  desperate  battle.  The  Jews  fought  as 
heroes.1 

Their  number  and  names  have  not  been  recorded  by  jeal- 
ous history.  But  the  fact  of  their  sincere  patriotism  suffices 
to  convince  any  unprejudiced  mind  that  the  Jews  can  be 
and  are  true  friends  to  their  country,  if  the  country  is  a 
true  friend  to  them. 

But  from  the  time  of  Charlemagne  to  the  great  Napoleon, 
Christian  countries  manifested  an  unaccountable  hatred  to 
the  Jews,  debarring  them  from  common  society  by  the  most 
offensive  treatment,  aiid  trampling  on  all  their  human  rights. 
Say  what  you  will,  the  Jews  were  never  wanting  in  patrio- 
tism, but  the  Christians  were  in  charity.  The  Reformation 
clearing  away  abuses  of  the  Church,  by  no  means  carried 
away  prejudices  against  our  race.  The  intolerance  of  its 
leaders  was  as  great  as  of  the  overbearing  dignitaries  of  the 
ruling  church,  Xor  was  the  Christian  populace  more  inclin- 
ed to  tolerate  the  Jews,  since  they  had  imbibed  the  new  doc- 

1  Gratz,  History  of  the  Jews,  v.,  50-57. 


29 

trines.  It  was  asserted  that  in  the  Peasants'  War,  1525,  the 
Jews  suffered  no  ill-treatment,  because  they  supported  the 
cause  of  the  imperial  cities  and  the  revolted  peasants  of  Ger- 
many against  the  princes  and  nobility.  But  this  assertion  has 
been  refuted  by  an  able  Jewish  writer,  who  proved  that  the 
insurgent  peasants  were  not  at  all  disposed  to  spare  the 
Jews  and  their  property.  Pillages  and  expulsion  of  Jews 
were  the  order  of  the  day  in  that  revolution,  which  they  may 
have  kept  off  here  and  there  by  rich  presents.1 

They  were  hated  then  as  they  were  Afterwards,  the  light 
of  the  Reformation  notwithstanding.  It  was  left  to  the  grow- 
ing enlightenment  of  the  last  century  gradually  to  soften  and 
dispel  the  fierce  prejudices  against  our  race.  Its  apostles  con- 
tributed greatly  to  the  amelioration  of  their  condition.  The 
great  Lessing  did  mighty  service  to  the  German  Jews.  His 
friend  Mendelssohn,  the  German  Socrates  as  he  was  called, 
co-operated  with  him  in  destroying  the  popular  hatred  and 
ill-will  against  them.  The  latter  had  himself  sorely  suffered 
from  it.  It  hurt  him  painfully  that  "in  so  many  a  beloved  city 
of  the  fatherland  no  Jew,  even  after  paying  the  prescribed  tax 
on  his  body,  was  in  broad  daylight  allowed  to  stay  without 
being  closely  watched,  for  fear  he  might  pursue  a  Christian 
child,  or  poison  the  wells;  when  at  night  they  would  not  tol- 
erate him  at  all,  for  his  reputed  communication  with  evil 
spirits."  He  worked  hard  to  bi-eak  down  the  wall  of  social 
separation  and  discrimination  between  Christians  and  Jews- 
It  was  hard  work,  as  he  himself  despondently  remarked,  "You 
may  cut  the  roots  of  prejudices  in  twain,  and  yet  they  will 
thrive,  drawing  their  nourishment  from  the  air,  if  not  from  the 
ground."  But  contemporaneously  with  the  praiseworthy  ef- 
forts of  those  and  other  champions  of  humanity  in  Christian 

1  Alfred  Stern,  in  Geiger's  Zeitschrift,  1870,  first  number,  p.  67 
seq. 


30 

Europe,  a  political  storm  arose  on  the  American  continent, 
uprooting  systematically  all  that  was  left  of  the  mediaeval 
prejudices  of  race  and  rank.  The  solemn  Declaration  by  the 
American  Congress  of  1776  of  "the  self  evident  truth,  that 
all  men  are  created  equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by  their 
Creator  with  certain  unalienable  rights,  that  among  these  are 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness"  was  the  new  gos- 
pel removing  in  principle  all  civil  disadvantages  and  disabil- 
ities imposed  on  any  class  of  human  beings  on  account  of 
their  descent  or  religion  Every  letter  of  it  was  inspired  and 
could  safely  be  adopted  by  sensible  and  upright  people  of  all 
creeds.  Jew  and  Christian  alike  could  swear  to  its  infallible 
truths.  And  while  the  fathers  of  our  Republic  made  this 
Declaration  good  by  vindicating  and  securing  unshackled  lib- 
erty to  the  thirteen  colonies,  they  at  the  same  time  vindicated 
implicitly  the  human  rights  of  the  Jews,  withheld  from  them 
for  nearly  fifteen  hundred  years. 

The  French  Revolution  followed,  destroying  the  old  society 
and  its  ancient  abuses.  Till  then,  "society  had  yet  the 
forms  of  the  middle  age.  The  common  people  had  no  rights 
at  all."  The  privileged  orders,  the  nobility  and  clergy,  al- 
lowed them  no  ascendency.  The  revolution  replaced  these 
privileges  by  the  equality  of  all  citizens.  This  was  guaran- 
teed to  all  French  citizens  alike,  the  Jews,  of  course,  includ- 
ed. The  year  1793  brought  them  this  long-desired  boon. 

However,  one  must  not  think  that  their  liberties  passed  at 
once  from  the  statute  into  reality.  As  there  were  yet  many 
bloody  battles  to  be  fought,  from  the  Declaration  of  American 
Independence  to  its  practical  existence,  so  had  the  French 
Jews  to  struggle  many  years  till  the  principle  of  full  equality 
was  actually  applied  in  their  relations  to  the  state. 

Even  Napoleon  the  Great,  pretending,  as  he  did,  to  put  an 
end  to  the  rotten  state  of  the  past,  would  not  regard  the  Jews 


31 

as  citizens,  even  so  late  as  in  the  year  1806.  Fie  then  declar- 
ed: "The  Jews  are  not  in  the  same  category  with  the 
Christians.  We  have  to  judge  them  by  the  political,  not  the 
civil  right,  for  they  are  no  citizens."  He  had,  however,  the 
earnest  desire  to  make  citizens  of  them.  To  that  end  he 
convened  a  respectable  number  of  Jewish  deputies,  in  1806. 
charging  them  to  state  and  explain  truly  the  obstacles,  if 
there  were  any,  to  Jewish  citizenship,  emanating  from  their 
religion.  One  of  the  questions  put  to  that  body  was  : 

Do  the  Jews  born  in  France,  and  considered  by  the  law  as 
her  citizens,  regard  this  country  as  theirs,  even  so  far  as  to 
be  obliged  eventually  to  defend  her? 

They  solemnly  answered:  "People  who  chose  for  them- 
selves a  fatherland,  living  therein  since  many  centuries,  and 
who,  even  under  oppressive  laws,  felt  such  an  attachment  to 
it  that  they  did  rather  forego  the  enjoyment  of  civil  liberties 
than  quit  it :  such  cannot  but  think  themselves  French- 
men in  France,  and  the  obligation  to  defend  her  is  to  them 
an  honorable  and  precious  one. — Jeremiah  advised  the  Jews 
of  Babylonia  to  regard  this  land  as  their  country,  though  they 
were  to  have  stayed  there  only  seventy  years.  They  followed 
this  advice  to  such  a  degree  that,  when  Cyrus  permitted  the 
exiles  to  return  to  their  mother  country,  only  42,360  of  them 
would  avail  themselves  of  that  permission. 

"Love  of  country  is  such  a  natural  and  profound  sentiment 
among  the  Jews,  and  so  corresponding  to  their  religious  belief, 
that  a  French  Jew  would  think  himself  a  stranger  on  English 
territory,  even  in  his  intercourse  with  co-religionists,  the 
same  being  true  of  English  Jews  in  France. 

"  This  sentiment  prevails  among  them  in  such  a  measure  that 
in  the  late  wars  one  could  see  frequently  French  Jews1  fight 

1  Of  77,000  Jews  in  all  the  French  provinces,  there  were,  about  that 
time,  797  in  active  military  service  (Gratz's  History,  Vol.  xi.,  p.  304). 


32 

with  fierce  animosity  against  those  of  the  hostile  ranks. 
Many  of  them  are  now  beset  with  scars,  as  the  glorious 
marks  of  their  patriotic  devotion,  and  others  have  been 
praised  and  distinguished  for  their  bravery  on  the  field  of 
honor." 

This  declaration  of  the  Jewish  deputies  was,  the  next  year, 
sanctioned  by  the  Synhedrin,  the  Jewish  council,  convened 
at  Paris.  Napoleon  acted  henceforth  according  to  this  trust- 
worthy information,  treating  the  Jews,  in  all  the  countries 
that  were  under  his  rule,  as  full  citizens.  Those  of  the  new 
kingdom  of  Westphalia  and  of  Frankfort  were  released  from 
the  miserable  bondage  they  had  so  many  centuries  endured. 
The  gates  of  their  gloomy  quarters  were,  with  the  entrance 
of  the  French  officials,  suddenly  opened,  and  out  they  could 
go  and  stride,  along  with  the  hitherto  privileged  race,  on 
the  highway  of  freedom,  secured  by  the  mighty  conqueror. 
Adjoining  states  could  not  well  stand  back  any  longer,  and 
commenced  also  liberating  the  Jews.  King  Frederick  Wil- 
liam III.  had  given  the  Jews  of  Prussia  the  local  citizenship 
in  1809,  followed,  in  1812,  by  their  perfect  emancipation,  on 
the  condition  of  performing  all  civil  duties,  especially  military 
service. 

No  sooner  were  they  promised  this  equality  with  their 
Christian  fellow-citizens,  than  they  hastened  to  prove  them- 
selves worthy  of  the  royal  kindness  and  confidence.  In  the 
ensuing  wars  of  independence,  they  responded  readily  to  the 
summons  of  their  king,  rallying  round  the  Prussian  standard 
with  an  exemplary  patriotism.  According  to  the  Prussian 
Military  Gazette  of  1843,  there  served  in  the  campaigns  of 
1813-14,  out  of  the  then  small  Jewish  population,  263  volun- 
teers and  80  regulars.  The  same  paper  states  that  in  1815, 
when  the  Prussian  army  had  its  largest  strength,  the  num- 
ber of  Jewish  soldiers  in  it  may  have  been,  according  to  the 


33 

forme1.'  ratio,  731.  This  computation  was,  however,  con- 
tested by  well  informed  Jewish  writers  as  being  too  low, 
considering  the  fact  that  in  1815  there  were  30  Jews  in  one 
battalion  of  volunteer  riflemen  alone.  In  one  such  detach- 
ment of  but  200  men  there  were  7  Jews,  2  of  them — the 
brothers  Simon — were  among  the  first  fifteen  who  joined  the 
ranks  as  volunteers.  Hardenberg,  the  Prussian  chancellor 
in  a  letter  to  the  Count  von  Grote,  dated  January  4th,  1815, 
gave  the  Jews  the  following  testimony :  "The  history  of  our 
late  war  with  France  shows  already  that  the  Jews  have,  by 
their  faithful  allegiance  to  the  state  conferring  equal  rights 
on  them,  proved  worthy  of  it.  The  young  men  of  the  Jewish 
faith  were  the  military  comrades  of  their  Christian  fellow- 
citizens,  of  whom  we  can  present  instances  of  true  heroism  and 
glorious  braving  of  the  dangers  of  war.  The  rest  of  the 
Jewish  inhabitants,  especially  the  ladies,  vied  with  the  Chris- 
tians in  all  kinds  of  patriotic  sacrifices."  To  this  we  could 
add  several  more  faithful  testimonies  of  the  gallantry  of 
Jewish  soldiers  in  the  Prussian  army.1  Where  did  this 
patriotism  spring  from  ?  From  a  "Jewish  and  plutopolitan 
motive,"  or  from  growing  love  to  a  country  that  seemed 
gradually  to  arrive  at  the  sense  of  justice  towards  their  op- 
pressed race  ?  Even  Professor  Smith  will  beware  of  imputing 
an  impure  motive  to  these  Prussian  Jews.  Nor  will  he  be 
able  to  uphold  his  pretext  any  longer,  that  the  Jews  serve 
as  soldiers  only  where  military  service  is  compulsory,  as  in 
modern  Prussia.  Their  service  in  the  Prussian  and  other 
German  armies,  during  the  wars  of  independence,  was,  for 
the  most  part,  voluntary. 

So  was  also  that  of  the  Jewish  soldiers  in  our  late  civil  war. 
Co.  H,  of  the  Sixty-sixth  Volunteer  Regiment,  that  took  part 
in  many  battles,    had   mainly   co-religionists    in    its   ranks. 
1  See  Griitz's  History,  Vol.  ii.,  pp.  320-21  aud  384. 


34 

One  of  the  Missouri  regiments  was  principally  composed 
of  Jews.  One-half  of  the  line  officers  of  the  sixth  New 
York  regiment  were  Jews.  The  officers  of  Col.  Einstein's 
Philadelphia  regiment  were  mostly  Jews.  Generals  Lyon 
and  Newman,  who  fell  on  the  field  of  battle,  were  Jews. 
The  American  Jews  displayed  a  laudable  readiness  in 
responding  to  the  call  of  their  country  for  its  protection. 
"Everywhere  in  the  loyal  States  they  had  come  nobly  forth 
among  the  very  first  to  offer  upon  the  altar  of  the  sacred 
Union  their  might,  intellect,  treasure,  and,  if  need  be,  their 
very  heart's  blood."  "No  body  of  citizens  surpassed  us 
Israelites  in  the  devoted  love  for  this  glorious  Union,  in  fer- 
vent patriotism,  and  the  firm  determination  in  its  defense 
'to  do  or  to  die.'  "  There  were  out  of  half  a  million  men  of 
the  Union  army  not  less  than  five  thousand  Jews  in  active 
service.  They  enlisted  in  the  same  proportion  with  the 
rest  of  the  population,  not  as  Jews,  but  as  free  and  equal 
citizens  of  this  Kepublic.  They  were  largely  represented, 
not  only  among  the  privates,  but  also  among  the  commis- 
sioned officers. 

Moreover,  many  of  the  Jews  who  were  then  sworn  in  for 
the  war  were  mechanics  with  large  families  to  support,  which 
they  had  to  commend  to  the  charge  or  charity  of  others, 
whilst  they  would  be  absent  on  their  highest  duty  to  their 
country.  Was  this  no  patriotism  ?  If  not,  will  Prof.  Smith 
be  kind  enough  to  define  what  else  it  was?  Or  will  he  not 
rather  change  his  prejudiced  mind  and  do  us  justice  again  by 
allowing  us  the  same  love  of  country  as  other  races,  even  the 
English,  after  reading  the  following  account  of  a  Jewish  par- 
ticipant of  that  civil  struggle  ?  "Here,  in  the  forests  of  Vir- 
ginia, are  the  descendants  of  the  Hebrew  patriarch  Abra- 
ham ;  behold  them  now  in  the  New  World  shedding  their 
blood  for  the  maintenance  of  the  liberties  secured  to  them  by 


35 

this  Republic;  and  that  while  thus  reflecting,  he  had  lu-anl 
some  of  his  brethren  utter  the  old  Jewish  declaration  of 
faith :  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God,  the  Lord  is  One. " 

This  touching  instance  at  the  same  time  answers  Professor 
Smith 'squery  as  to  the  political  bearing  of  Judaism,  and  what 
are  the  relations  between  country  and  race  in  the  mind  of  a 
strict  Jew.  Judaism  teaches  gratitude  to  whomsoever  it  is  due 
and  the  American  Jews  proved  their  heartfelt  gratitude  for 
their  civil  and  religious  equality,  which,  throughout  the 
Union,  is  the  unquestioned  right  of  every  citizen,  in  helpino- 
to  defend  their  country  to  the  last  moment.  Judaism  teaches 
the  Unity  of  God,  and  therefore  a  strict  Jew  will  profess  it 
even  on  the  battle-field.  Judaism  teaches  fraternal  good-wil] 
to  all  fellow-beings;  therefore,  a  strict  Jew  readily  joins 
with  his  Christian  brethren  in  furthering  the  welfare  of  the 
community.  In  times  of  peace  or  war  he  is,  by  virtue  of  his 
religion  and  modern  education,  as  good  a  subject  and  citizen 
as  any  one  else.  This  proposition  ought  to  "convince  "  Pro- 
fessor Smith  and  make  him  "  cease  to  cling  to  the  miserable '' 
prejudice  that  Judaism  is  a  religion  of  race  and  tribal.  If 
the  Jew  have  tribal  affiliations,  they  do  not  prevent  him 
exercising  his  various  duties  to  the  commonwealth  of  which 
he  is  a  member.  No  tribal  relations  whatever  were  con- 
sidered by  the  American  Jewish  soldiers  of  both  armies. 
The  Confederate  Jew,  defending  the  cause  of  his  section,  saw 
in  his  co-religionist  of  the  other  side,  had  he  even  recognized 
him  as  such  in  the  heat  of  battle,  but  a  foe  whom  he  held  it 
his  patriotic  duty  to  conquer;  and  so  did  the  Jew  of  the 
Union  forces.  The  ruling  motives  of  all  the  Jewish  soldiers 
in  both  armies  were  exclusively  those  which  actuated  every 
other  patriotic  American.  This  will  readily  be  acknowledge- 1 
by  all  Americans  living.  And  the  General-in-Chief  include' I 
certainly  in  his  praise  to  the  Union  soldiers,  on  dismissing 


36 

them,  June  2d,  1865,  the  great  number  of  Jews  who  had  also, 
"  in  obedience  to  their  country,  left  their  homes  and  families, 
and  volunteered  in  her  defense."  They  were  among  those 
who,  "  by  their  patriotic  devotion  to  their  country  in  the 
hour  of  danger  and  alarm,  have  maintained  the  supremacy  of 
the  Union  and  the  Constitution." 

And  what  the  American  Jew  was  and  is  capable  of,  should 
not  the  English  be  ?  Is  he  of  a  different  nature  ?  By  no 
means.  Only  a  morbid  hatred  of  our  race  could  have  dictat- 
ed Prof.  Smith's  disparaging  opinion,  that  it  is  beyond  the 
legislator's  power  to  make  patriots  of  the  English  Jews.  It 
ever  and  everywhere  depended  solely  on  legislation  to  make 
the  Jews  love  their  country.  The  ordinance  of  Edward  I., 
banishing  all  the  Jews  from  the  English  soil,  could  certainly 
not  have  inspired  them  with  love  for  it.  The  16,511  wretch- 
ed Jews  who  were  on  the  31st  of  August,  1290,  pitilessly  driven 
from  a  country  inhabited  by  their  ancestors  as  far  back  as  the 
eighth  century,  if  not  earlier,  could  no  longer  be  attached  to  it 
and  its  monarch.  Nor  even  was  it  reasonable  to  expect  from 
those  Jews  who,  by  the  connivance  of  the  rulers  came  into 
London  in  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century,  to  be  at 
once  warm  patriots.  They  had  to  pay  dearly  for  such  tolera- 
tion which  allowed  them  only  to  live  there  as  isolated  stran- 
gers, without  the  right  to  purchase  houses  or  practise  profes- 
sions. 

To  make  them  patriots  it  was  necessary  to  make  them  citi- 
zens first.  As  our  venerable  Cremieux  remarked  once  :  "  If 
you  persecute,  you  make  slaves;  only  by  declaring  equal 
rights  for  all  you  will  make  good  citizens."  Nevertheless, 
the  third  generation  of  those  Jewish  settlers  who  were  natives, 
and  more  so  thefourth,  being  purely  English,  felt  themselves 
as  Englishmen.  They  were  grateful  for  the  scanty  tolera- 
tion they  enjoyed,  and  proved  themselves  "  zealously  national 


37 

already   in  the   reign  of  George  I.,  firm  adherents   to   the 
Protestant  succession."1 

The  naturalization  act  followed  in  1753.  It  was  strenu- 
ously advocated  by  the  liberal  ministry  of  George  II.  But 
the  opposition  was  too  strong  to  carry  it  into  effect.  It  was 
repealed  by  the  next  session  of  Parliament — "  a  sacrifice  to  the 
bigotry  of  the  populace."2  And,  let  us  add,  to  their  narrow 
jealousy. 

It  is  true,  the  religion  of  the  Jews  had  ever  alarmed  the 
English  fanatics.  In  the  council  held  by  Cromwell  on  their 
re-admission,  the  invited  preachers  were  fiercely  Opposed  to 
it,  on  the  ground  that  Judaism  might  once  become  the  estab- 
lished religion.3  In  1703,  but  a  short  time  after  their  silent 
re-admission,  when  under  Charles  II.,  in  1663,4  there  resided 
altogether  twelve  Jews  in  London,  an  anonymous  appeal  to 
the'clergy  was  issued,  denouncing  their  toleration  as  illegal 
the  laws  banishing  them  having  never  been  repealed.5  And 
so  late  as  1841,  in  the  parliamentary  debate  on  the  Jews' 
Declaration  Bill,  Sir  Robert  Inglis  expressed  his  fear  that,  if 
it  were  passed,  it  would  unchristianize  England.6 

It  was  alleged  again  and  again,  also  by  E.  W  Gladstone, 
that  the  Jewish  disqualification  was  due  to  their  religion, 
Christianity  being  part  and  parcel  of  the  law  of  England. 

We  are  unable  to  ascertain  whether  any  or  how  much  of 
narrow  jealousy  was  mixed  with  the  outspoken  prejudices  of 
those  objectors  to  Jewish  emancipation.  We  only  know 
that  it  was  ever  prevalent  in  England.  Their  religion  was 
often  but  the  pretext  put  forth  to  lessen  the  odium  of  the 
meanest  prejudices  against  them.  The  above-mentioned 
anonymous  writer,  arguing  against  those  favoring  their 

1  Christian  correspondent,  Jewish  Messenger,  May  30th,  1862. 

2  Hannah  Adams,  History  of  the  Jews.         3  Tovey,  Anglia  Judaica. 
4  Ib.        5  See  Jewish  Messenger  of  1861.        6  See  Orient  of  1841. 


38 

re-admission  because  of  their  commercial  activity  which 
promotes  English  trade,  said  it  was  "  certain  that  none  but 
kings  and  princes  and  their  favorites  ever  gained  by  the 
Jews.  They  do  boldly  presume  to  engross  the  principal 
part  of  our  trade  now  .  .  .  and  have  outdone  our  English 
merchants."  And  the  opponents  of  the  Naturalization  Bill 
in  1753  argued  in  the  same  strain  that,  if  they  were  admitted 
to  the  rank  of  citizens,  they  would  engross  the  whole  com- 
merce of  the  kingdom.1 

Neither  of  these  anticipations,  however,  came  to  pass  after 
their  actual  emancipation.  Judaism  did  not  become  the 
established  church  of  England,  nor  even  shake  the  pillars  of 
the  present  one,  and  the  few  Jewish  establishments  in  Eng- 
lish cities  by  no  means  drove  the  merchants  of  the  Christian 
creed  to  poverty.  The  number  of  the  English  Jews,  about 
18,000  up  to  1841,  was  altogether  too  insignificant  to  incite 
any  grounded  fear  of  their  overwhelming  influence  in  matters 
of  religion,  politics,  and  trade.  Their  small  number  was  the 
cause  rather  of  their  just  claims  being  so  long  disregarded. 
Had  they  been  as  numerous  as  the  Catholics  or  the  Dissent- 
ers, they  would  have  won  their  rights  at  a  much  earlier 
period.  The  government  could  not  have  ignored  the  threat- 
ening power  of  millions  of  oppressed  people  without 
apprehending  serious  injury  to  the  crown  and  constitution. 
The  comparatively  few  Jews,  however,  could  exercise  no 
mighty  pressure  upon  the  ruling  power,  therefore  their  full 
political  equality  was  deferred  from  one  decade  to  the  other. 

The  noble  courage  of  the  great  Macaulay,  of  Lord  John 
Russell,  and  some  other  unbiased  champions  of  humanity, 
was  required  to  remove  one  disability  of  the  Jews  after  the 
other.  When  it  was  argued  against  them,  that  they  are 
more  attached  to  their  nation  than  they  are  to  the  people  of 

1  Hannah  Adams,  ib. 


39 

England,  Macaulay  refuted  this  argument  as  unfair  "till  we 
have  tried  the  experiment  whether,  by  making  Englishmen 
of  them,  they  will  not  become  members  of  the  community."1 
When  it  was  objected  that  the  Jews  look  forward  to  the 
•coming  of  a  great  deliverer  and  that,  therefore,  they  could 
not  heartily  be  attached  to  their  present  country,  he  rejoined : 
"Many  Christians  believe  that  Jesus  will  reign  on  earth 
during  a  thousand  years;  according  to  some  the  time  is  close 
at  hand.  Are  we  to  exclude  all  millenarians  from  Parliament 
and  office  on  the  ground  that  they  are  impatiently  looking 
forward  to  the  miraculous  monarchy  which  is  to  supersede 
the  present  dynasty  and  the  present  constitution  of  England?  " 
The  truth  is  that  bigotry  will  never  want  a  pretence."  He 
held  further,  "there  is  nothing  in  their  national  character 
which  unfits  them  for  the  highest  duties  of  citizens."3 

Such  cogent  arguments,  one  should  expect,  must  have 
stopped  the  cry  of  the  fiercest  opponents  of  the  Jewish 
•cause.  It  took,  however,  fully  eight  years  more  until  their 
admission  to  civil  and  municipal  offices  became  a  law,  April 
1st,  1841.  In  that  session  of  Parliament,  Macaulay  again 
defended  their  rights  manfully,  calling  "  on  every  gentleman 
who  thought  the  Jews  competent  to  discharge  the  duties  of 
municipal  officers  to  vote  for  this  Bill."3  His  efforts  were 
this  time  crowned  with  success.  The  majority  of  the 
members  had  "  enlightened  toleration  "  enough  to  vote  in 
the  affirmative. 

The  natural  consequence  was  to  relieve  them  from  all  civil 
disabilities  whatever,  permitting  them  even  to  enter  Parlia- 
ment. After  seventeen  years  of  additional  struggle,  they 
obtained  also  this  privilege,  in  1858. 

1  Speech  in  the  House  of  Commons,  April  oth,  1830. 

2  Speech  on  the  Jewish  Disabilities,  April,  1 833. 

3  Speech  on  the  Jews'  Declaration  Bill,  March  31st,  1841. 


40 

That  year  ended  their  practical  persecution.  For,  as 
Macaulay  properly  said,  "  persecution  it  is  to  inflict  any 
penalties  on  account  of  religious  opinions."  There  is 
certainly  no  more  humiliating  penalty  for  a  citizen  than  to- 
be  denied  the  right  to  hold  office. 

Now  comes  Professor  Smith,  after  twenty  years  have  passed 
since  the  English  Jews  were  granted  political  power,  and 
charges  them  with  misdirecting  it  in  conjuring  up  political 
danger  to  the  country,  and  decries  all  of  them  as  unpatriotic 
for  the  imaginary  wrong  of  a  few  representatives  !  Now 
comes  Professor  Smith  leading  "  that  new-fangled  class  of 
our  Liberals  who  ask  themselves  whether  Jews  can  be 
patriots."1  And  now  the  Jews  are  "suddenly  declared  to  be 
worthless  strangers  to  the  land — solely  because  many  of 
them  uphold  the  views  which  the  best  English  statesmen  of 
all  parties  had  hitherto  maintained."2  Is  this  not  cruel  on 
his  part  ?  Is  it  not  cruel  to  impugn  the  past  patriotism  of 
the  English  Jews,  so  often  acknowledged  by  truthful  Christ- 
ians, because  some  of  them  hold  diverse  political  views  and 
advise  diverse  measures  at  a  crisis  in  their  common  country  ? 
Though  it  cannot  be  disputed  that  they  have  "  on  several 
trying  occasions  laid  on  the  altar  of  public  safety  noble 
sacrifices  of  their  lives  and  their  fortunes,"  and  that  "the 
blood  of  Israel  profusely  flowed  in  the  fields  of  Waterloo,"  : 
what  matters  it?  "The  Jew  must  be  burned,"  as  the 
Patriarch  said  to  the  Templar  in  Nathan  the  Wise,  or  at  least 
branded  with  the  suspicion  of  Jewish  and  plutopolitan 
motives  in  all  his  public  actions. 

The  enemies  of  the  Jews  will  never  acquiesce  in  their  liber- 
ties. They  will  continue  to  misjudge  the  Jews'  relation  to  the 
community,  and  doubt  their  devotion  to  it.  As  one  who  was 

1  Westminster  Review,  July,  1878.  -  Ib. 

3  According  to  the  above  correspondent,  Jewish  Messenger. 


41 

unsuccessful  in  an  enterprise,  or  defeated  by  a  rival  in  a  canvass, 
is  apt  to  make  his  subordinates  or  even  his  family  suffer  for  it 
by  peevish  conduct,  so  would  they  make  the  Jews  suffer  for 
every  misfortune  or  defeat  of  the  community.  They  do  not 
shrink  from  charging  upon  them  all  the  perils  of  a  crisis  into 
which  it  has  fallen  by  a  combination  of  causes  imperceptible 
to  the  unreasoning  brain  of  the  masses ;  and  how  easily  are 
these  excited  into  the  belief  or  pretext  that  the  Jews,  that 
peculiar  people  among  us,  the  deadly  enemies  of  Christ,  have 
wrought  all  this  mischief!  This  was,  indeed,  the  practice  in 
the  Middle  Ages,  and  it  is  so  still.  It  was  the  outcry  of  many 
German  literati  raised  against  the  Jews  at  the  conclusion  of 
the  late  Franco-Prussian  war,  in  which  thousands  of  Jews  had 
nobly  participated.  Many  of  them  had  died  a  glorious 
soldier's  death,  in  reward  for  which  those  favorites  of  the 
Muses  sought  to  rouse  and  excite  the  common  people  against 
their  Jewish  compatriots. 

Alas !  reward  for  services  rendered  to  the  community  was 
ever  very  miserly,  or  rather  miserably,  portioned  out  to  the 
Jews.  Those  of  Prussia  had,  in  1813,  readily  responded  to 
the  summons  of  the  king.  They  strove  to  show  their  thank- 
fulness for  the  gift  bestowed  on  them  a  short  time  before. 
It  was  the  edict  of  March  Hth,  1812,  declaring  them  as 
native  citizens  with  equal  rights  and  liberties,  even  the  right 
to  municipal  offices,  and  to  teach  in  public  schools  and 
universities,  reserving  only  their  admission  to  other  public 
offices  to  after-legislation. 

This  was  a  rather  fair  precedent  on  the  part  of  Frederick 
William.  In  return  for  it,  the  Jewish  young  men  were 
among  the  first  answering  his  appeal  to  come  forth  and 
defend  the  fatherland.  Their  service  was  gladly  accepted, 
not  the  least  objection  being  made  on  account  of  their  reli- 
gious creed. 


42 

How  was  it  rewarded  after  the  French  conqueror  was 
overthrown,  and  all  dangers  diverted  ?  Not  long  after  the 
splendid  victories  of  the  Allies,  in  1814,  the  king  retracted, 
first  silently,  then  openly,  the  privileges  granted  the  Jews  in 
the  period  of  distress  and  humiliation. 

First  it  was  decided  that  the  edict  of  1812  was  not  to 
apply  to  the  reconquered  or  newly- won  provinces.  Again, 
the  Jewish  invalids,  returning  home  from  the  battle-fields, 
where  they  had  redeemed  the  Jewish  honor  with  their 
blood,  were  denied  any  public  employment,1  in  violation  of 
the  solemn  pledge  made  before  the  war  to  the  whole  people 
that  the  government  would  provide  suitable  positions  for 
the  disabled  soldiers.  The  Jews  were  henceforth  excluded 
even  from  the  office  of  surveyor  and  commissioner  of  auctions, 
under  the  pretext  that  these  were  state  offices,  the  admission 
to  which  was  in  the  edict  left  undecided. 

The  just  hopes  of  the  Jewish  young  men  preparing  for  an 
academic  career  were  cruelly  betrayed.  They  could  get  no 
appointment  as  teachers  and  professors  unless  they  submitted 
to  baptism.  An  ordinance  of  1822  repealed  the  respective 
franchise  guaranteed  to  them  in  that  edict,  and  so  the  fate  of 
the  ablest  Jewish  students  was  sealed.  They  were,  in  the 
whole  Prussian  monai'chy,  not  even  allowed  to  be  druggists. 
In  this  way  the  king  kept  his  promise!  Such  was  the 
reward  for  their  vaiious  sacrifices  to  the  country. 

In  the  provinces  that  were  formerly  under  French  rule, 
the  Jews  did  not  fare  much  better.  Although  an  instruction 
was  issued  in  1830  that  the  condition  of  the  Jews  in  the  new 
and  regained  provinces  should,  until  further  action,  remain  as 
it  was  found  on  retaking  possession  of  them  by  Prussia,  they 
were  nevertheless  even  there  not  allowed  to  hold  office,  serve 
as  jurors,  practice  law,  or  be  druggists. 

1  Ministerial  decree  of  1826. 


43 

Their  liberties  entering  into  the  large  kingdom  of  West- 
phalia with  the  French  officials,  in  1807,  disappeared  after 
the  glorious  year  1814. 

So  it  was  also  at  Frankfort-on-the-Maine.  The  Jews 
there,  in  an  address  published  in  1832,  complained  as  fol- 
lows :  "  In  the  war  called  by  them  (the  despots)  the  war  of 
independence,  we,  too,  have  borne  arms.  Before  that  war,  we 
of  Frankfort,  as  everywhere  else  in  Germany  where  the  French 
law  was  ruling,  enjoyed  equal  rights  with  our  Christian  fellow- 
citizens.  When  we  returned  from  the  battle-fields,  however, 
we  met  our  fathers  and  brothers,  whom  we  had  left  as  free 
citizens,  again  as  serfs,  and  such  we  have  been  until  to-day. 
They  have  assumed  over  us  the  right  of  the  pest,  viz.,  to 
diminish  our  population,  as  they  do  not  let  us  contract  more 
than  fifteen  marriages  a  year,  though  we  number  five  thou- 
sand. They  now  advance  against  us  that  we  came  from  the 
Orient  and  were  strangers  in  the  land,  and  that  we  considered 
even  our  Christian  countrymen  as  such.  However,  this  is  our 
creed,  this  the  doctrine  inherited  from  our  fathers :  When  God 
created  the  world,  he  created  man  and  woman,  not  master 
and  slave,  Jews  and  Christians,  rich  and  poor."  Borne  wrote 
in  1819,  "  After  the  overthrow  of  Napoleon,  the  Jewish  liber- 
ties were  here  and  there  decried  as  pernicious  to  the  state. 
The  Jews  were  also  suspected  of  being  friendly  to  the  French 
dominion.  Their  peculiarities  were  such  that  their  haters 
would  not  tolerate  them  as  citizens.  Only  Germans,  such  as, 
according  to  Tacitus,  came  forth  from  thp  woods  with  red 
hair  and  light-blue  eyes,  were  in  their  opinion  entitled  to 
civil  rights,  whereas  the  dark-complexioned  Jews  contrasted 
too  disagreeably  with  them." 

This  sarcastic  utterance  of  his  was  the  melancholy  outcry 
of  a  member  of  the  suffering  race  rather  than  a  wanton 
reflection  upon  the  ruling  one.  "  He  was  born  a  slave, 


44 

therefore  he  loved  freedom  more  than  they,"  wrote  he  at  a 
later  period.  He  became  indeed  a  sturdy  and  fervent  apostle 
of  freedom,  in  a  country  where  despotism  ruled  supreme. 

The  oppressed  Jews,  it  is  true,  could  find  some  comfort  in 
the  similar  sufferings  of  the  entire  German  population  ;  and 
to  win  their  rights  was  to  the  Jews  no  more  than  the  right 
to  share  in  the  endurance  of  wrongs.  Their  grievances, 
however,  were  increased  by  the  popular  hatred  and  contempt 
under  which  they  were  yet  smarting. 

The  German  Jews  had  to  struggle  long  and  hard  till  they 
obtained  equal  rights.  Their  participation  in  the  wars  of 
independence  availed  them  nothing.  Nor  was  their  military 
service  which  followed,  of  any  considerable  benefit  to  them. 
The  before-mentioned  Gazette  has  put  their  number  enlisted 
from  1814  to  1842,  at  3,314.  Notwithstanding  this  respect- 
able showing  for  a  still  persecuted  class,  their  advancement 
in  military  rank  was  a  very  rare  occurrence. 

The  wild  year  of  the  revolution,  1848,  brought  them  some 
relief.  The  Constituent  Assembly  at  Berlin  had  declared  all 
civil  and  political  rights  independent  of  any  religious  denomi- 
nation, whereby  the  Jews  also  gained  their  liberties.  These 
were  even  acknowledged  by  the  constitution  of  1850.  But 
the  subsequent  reaction  overturned  this  beneficial  re- 
sult ;  so  they  had  to  fight  again  for  their  rights.  They  did 
so  persistently  till  at  last,  in  1869,  the  law  of  the  North 
German  Confederacy  relieved  them  from  the  mediaeval  yoke 
they  had  so  long  borne.  Their  full  political  equality  in  all  the 
confederate  German  states  was  now  a  sanctioned  law,  though 
by  no  means  an  accomplished  fact.  God  knows  when  the 
time  will  come  for  that.  The  Teutonic  race  will  not  so  soon 
cease  their  pandering  to  mediaeval  prejudices  against  the 
Jews. 

The  German  Je\vs  havi-  since  th^n.  in  tlu-  Franco-Prussian 


45 

war,  evinced  their  love  of  country  in  an  unexampled  degree. 
Philippson,  in  his  "  Memoirs  of  that  war  for  the  German 
Israelites,"  states  that  in  this  national  rising  the  Jews  took 
an  ample  part.  Besides  the  conscripts  and  regulars,  there 
served  in  the  united  German  forces  a  large  number  of  them 
as  volunteers.  Among  these,  there  were  young  men  who 
had  come  from  Holland  and  England,  even  from  America 
and  Cairo,  to  stand  by  their  offended  and  imperilled  father- 
land. That  indefatigable  journalistand  author  collected  a  list 
of  the  Jewish-German  soldiers  paiticipating  in  the  campaign 
which  resulted  in  showing  their  number  at  2,531  men. 
Considering  that  this  list  was  but  the  first  of  a  series  to  be 
published  after  he  would  have  received  more  complete 
reports,  and  that  none  at  all  were  sent  him  from  the  largest 
Jewish  communities,  as  Berlin,  Breslau,  Posen,  Frankfort, 
no  one,  not  even  Professor  Smith,  will  deny  this  to  have  been 
well  proportioned  to  their  relative  number  in  the  country. 
Cannot  the  Jews  then  be  patriots  ? 


°°0114520     o 


